Astoundingly Bad Reporting On Ed Snowden: Claims He Said The Exact Opposite Of What He Said

from the now-that's-impressive-journalism dept

Update: The original article I had seen, on the ABC Australia site has now been "updated" with a correction. It turns out that it was actually just carelessly running a piece from the AFP wire. The AFP piece (sometimes edited, sometimes not) can be seen on MSN.com, Yahoo and the AFP directly. However, I think that first sentence below was a bad summary by the ABC site of the bad reporting by AFP, since none of the others include that initial, totally incorrect, sentence.

Former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden, wanted by US authorities and currently living in Russia, has told a Brazilian TV network he has applied for asylum in Brazil and is in possession of more sensitive documents.

"I would love to live in Brazil," Snowden told Globo TV on Sunday (local time).

[....] He said he had more documents to release, relating to US spying on countries that include Britain and Brazil.

That struck me as strange, given earlier statements, including from Snowden himself, that he no longer has any access to any of the documents. As for the application for asylum, last year, Snowden had sent an open letter to Brazil, in which he doesn't actually ask for asylum, but hints that he'd be interested if there were a way to work out the details.

Thankfully, the full Globo TV episode is available online and was conducted in English. And what you quickly discover is whoever wrote that ABC story, is plainly misrepresenting what was said (thanks to Blair Chintella for pointing out exactly where). Early in the interview, Snowden clearly says that he destroyed all the documents. Later in the interview (around minute 40) he's even more direct in contradicting the ABC report:

Sonia Bridi (Globo TV): Every now and then, the American press says that you would offer Brazil documents in exchange for asylum. Is that an offer that's on the table?

Snowden: Absolutely not! I could not be more clear. First off, I don't have any documents to offer. Secondly, even if I did, I would never trade secret information or cooperate with some government in exchange for asylum. Asylum has to be granted on humanitarian grounds. It has to be granted to protect political rights or the right to safety. This whole topic about negotiating for asylum, I think, is improper. If Brazil wants to offer asylum, if they want to stand for human rights, if they want to protect the rights of whistleblowers, I think that's a good thing, and I would certainly encourage and support it -- whether it's in my case, or the case of anyone. But I would never engage in any sort of "deal" or quid pro quo exchange.

And somehow, that gets turned into: "Snowden... has told a Brazilian TV network he has applied for asylum in Brazil and is in possession of more sensitive documents." Incredible. As the reporter from the TV interview herself tweeted later, the report is simply factually incorrect. It was Greenwald who still said he had more documents. While the difference may seem minor, it's very, very big, since Snowden is the one who could use asylum, and his critics would jump on either bogus claim: that he had lied about earlier destruction of documents or that he'd "trade" documents for asylum, as suggested in the report. But neither of those things are true.

you ought to know what these Aussi reporters are like! look what the nurse did a while ago. she killed herself all because of some ridiculous prank pulled by a couple of reporters. they were sack, if i remember correctly but to my mind, that wasn't anywhere near severe enough punishment considering a life was lost over it!

Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jun 5th, 2014 @ 8:17am

They weren't reporters but morning disc-jockeys in Australia. They pretended to be the Queen in a phone call to a hospital in England, checking up on somebody. I think one of the pregnant Princesses. The nurse fell for it, then offed herself over it when it all came out.

Asylum

While the difference may seem minor, it's very, very big, since Snowden is the one who could use asylum, and his critics would jump on either bogus claim: that he had lied about earlier destruction of documents or that he'd "trade" documents for asylum, as suggested in the report. But neither of those things are true.

And ABC only said one of them: "In the interview, Snowden said he would not offer documents to any country in exchange for a safe haven, because asylum should be granted for humanitarian reasons."

This is the same tar and feather brush Alexander has been working with trying to convince the public that Snowden is a traitor and spy. His version of the truth had no legs any more than this one does. Fell flat on it's face right out of the door.

Re: Which reporter

Actually ABC just ran the feed from AFP. However it does seem rather convenient that no one from AFP seems to want to take credit for the story either. I have a theory about that. I think it was written by the Slenderman.

Re:

It is the completely unbiased and Australian Government Owned Broadcasting service. ABC as in Australian Broadcasting Corporation. As quoted from the Wikipedia article

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) is Australia's national public broadcaster. With a total annual budget of A$1.22 billion, the corporation provides television, radio, online and mobile services throughout metropolitan and regional Australia, as well as overseas through the Australia Network and Radio Australia.

Founded in 1929 as the Australian Broadcasting Company, it was subsequently made a state-owned corporation on 1 July 1932, as the Australian Broadcasting Commission. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983[2] changed the name of the organisation to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, effective 1 July 1983. Although funded and owned by the government, the ABC remains editorially independent as ensured through the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983.

Though after the latest Australian Government budget there has been talk that it is too "fat" and that they may need to cut some programming like "Peppa Pig".

Re: Re: Which reporter

who do you trust?

"And you wonder why people don't trust the press so much these days."

I trust Mike Masnick, and that's what counts!

I lost all trust for the US press 11 years ago, after their disgraceful Iraq war cheerleading. But that's when I also discovered The Guardian, which is perhaps (both then and now) the most un-propagandized of all English-language commercial news media.

Re: who do you trust?

This is a French News Service story based on butchered retelling of details from an interview done by a credible Brazilian reporter. What part of that has to do with the US press (other than the fact that MSN regurgitated it too without checking the claims on it first)?

The ABC news story was updated as late as 22:31 on 05 June 2014 UTC (6 June 2014 in Australia):

Editor's note (6 June 2014): An earlier version of this story reported that Edward Snowden had told Globo TV he was in possession of more sensitive documents. In fact, he told Globo he has no more documents to offer. Instead, journalist Glenn Greenwald, who was part of the interview, told Globo there are more revelations about the activities of intelligence agencies to come.